[00.00-02.76] Can you see the CRA for emotional distress?
[02.76-05.28] Bar is pretty high, but in this court case,
[05.28-07.92] a couple was actually successful and was awarded
[07.92-11.84] $1.6 million in damages from malicious prosecution.
[11.84-13.60] Tony and Helen Sam were a couple
[13.60-16.80] from Nanaimo, British Columbia who ran multiple businesses,
[16.80-19.84] and they were accused by the CRA of tax evasion.
[19.84-22.76] But the couple got cleared on all tax evasion charges.
[22.76-25.48] CRA alleged that they were under-reporting their income
[25.48-26.92] and not reporting all of their revenue
[26.92-28.92] and thus committing tax evasion.
[28.96-32.44] But the CRA themselves ignored a ton of very clear evidence
[32.44-35.44] that they knew would have completely destroyed their case.
[35.44-38.08] They still went ahead with the criminal prosecution.
[38.08-39.68] Once the couple were cleared,
[39.68-42.36] they sued the CRA for malicious prosecution.
[42.36-45.48] You could read above how malicious prosecution is defined.
[45.48-47.28] The last two points are interesting.
[47.28-49.20] There's no reasonable or probable cause
[49.20-51.96] and the prosecution was motivated by malice
[51.96-54.32] or a primary purpose other than carrying out
[54.32-56.44] the law in this case, it was pretty clear.
[56.44-59.12] The CRA was motivated by malice
[59.12-61.16] and clearly just wanted to make a case
[61.16-63.00] and didn't really care what it took
[63.00-66.08] or whether the evidence was actually in the CRA's favor.
[66.08-68.64] And since the CRA is vicariously liable
[68.64-69.96] for the actions of its employees,
[69.96-72.04] the CRA was liable for the actions
[72.04-73.36] of the senior investigator,
[73.36-75.88] and the judge was not messing around
[75.88-78.20] when it comes to how what he said about the CRA
[78.20-79.88] and that senior investigator.
[79.88-84.04] Evidence was concealed in culpatory evidence was created.
[84.04-86.76] The CRA investigators conduct was high-handed,
[86.76-88.76] a reprehensible, and malicious.
[88.76-90.84] So in the end, the couple was awarded
[90.84-92.24] the damages shown here below.